Uh oh, Another allegation against Kavanaugh

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

Ringo84 said:
Let them talk to the Committee first, as Notre said. If that doesn't pan out, they should definitely start talking to the Maryland AG, but these allegations need to be investigated and Kavanaugh's confirmation put on hold. This is too serious a charge to ignore.
Ringo

But here's the problem. As is the accusations are a "she said, he said not." That bubble is popped if there are corroborating eyewitnesses. The only way to get witnesses to come forward and make sworn statements is to be called by law enforcement. With the accusations going forward as is without corroborating evidence, even under oath, it is their personal word against his.

No filed charges
No witness corroboration

End result gives the Senate no course but to hold the vote. Why? Because there's no evidence to delay.

iluvatar5150 · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
What would that accomplish unless those she confided were present as witnesses as well?

They would verify the timing of the accusations, i.e. that she didn't make them up recently.

Ringo84 · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
But here's the problem. As is the accusations are a "she said, he said not." That bubble is popped if there are corroborating eyewitnesses. The only way to get witnesses to come forward and make sworn statements is to be called by law enforcement. With the accusations going forward as is without corroborating evidence, even under oath, it is their personal word against his.

No filed charges
No witness corroboration

End result gives the Senate no course but to hold the vote. Why? Because there's no evidence to delay.

Not only did Swetnick say that there were witnesses, but she signed an affadavit swearing to what she claimed. An affadavit has a bit more weight behind it than simply "he said/she said".

And again: this is just more proof that an investigation needs to be done.
Ringo

FreeinChrist · Sep 26, 2018

Veritas said:
How do you investigate something when even the accuser cannot say what day, time or place an alleged incident happened? Further, Kavanaugh has released his 1982 high school calendar...can't believe he has hung onto it all these years.

Terms of Service Violation

The calendar doesn't prove anything, other than it shows he spent his summer going to the beach and his weekends at St. Michaels which is is a waterfront beach town. Some parties are written down.

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

iluvatar5150 said:
They would verify the timing of the accusations, i.e. that she didn't make them up recently.

Agreed. But that would still only establish such back to 2012.

Ringo84 · Sep 26, 2018

Which is long before Kavanaugh was ever nominated for the Supreme Court, thus proving that this was not, in fact, a "last minute smear" as Senate Republicans have been hastening to claim.
Ringo

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

Ringo84 said:
Not only did Swetnick say that there were witnesses, but she signed an affadavit swearing to what she claimed. An affadavit has a bit more weight behind it than simply "he said/she said".

And again: this is just more proof that an investigation needs to be done.
Ringo

But Ringo saying there are other witnesses and actually producing said witnesses is the Grand Canyon.

It begs the question of which part of her account would be corroborated. The NYT and Washington Post have been trying to get an interview with Swetnick and they asked for leads on eyewitnesses. So far the Stormy Daniels lawyer has denied access.

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

Ringo84 said:
Which is long before Kavanaugh was ever nominated for the Supreme Court, thus proving that this was not, in fact, a "last minute smear" as Senate Republicans have been hastening to claim.
Ringo

You are right, Ms Ford did not set this up for a last minute smear. Senator since the Jurassic Age Diane Feinstein did.

NotreDame · Sep 26, 2018

FreeinChrist said:
That would work. The committee needs to allow it.

In the meantime, no reason Stentwick cannot contact local authorities. The Senate Judiciary Committee is capable of doing a sufficient investigation to determine whether the recent allegation is meritorious enough to warrant a more in-depth investigation by the FBI.

iluvatar5150 · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
Agreed. But that would still only establish such back to 2012.

You're getting your accusers mixed up. (understandable, given how many there are) This latest woman (represented by Avenatti) claims to have told a couple people shortly after it happened - back in high school.

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

Ringo84 said:
Not only did Swetnick say that there were witnesses, but she signed an affadavit swearing to what she claimed. An affadavit has a bit more weight behind it than simply "he said/she said".

What do you think would happen, given her sworn statement, if no eyewitnesses come forward (if called for)?

And if she names names, and they say "I don't remember", will she be guilty of perjury?

Ringo84 · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
But Ringo saying there are other witnesses and actually producing said witnesses is the Grand Canyon.

It begs the question of which part of her account would be corroborated. The NYT and Washington Post have been trying to get an interview with Swetnick and they asked for leads on eyewitnesses. So far the Stormy Daniels lawyer has denied access.

Actually, he's requested the Committee to interview her and then for the FBI to get involved, which Republicans are loath to do because that might inadvertently reveal some truth.
Ringo

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

FreeinChrist said:
The calendar doesn't prove anything, other than it shows he spent his summer going to the beach and his weekends at St. Michaels which is is a waterfront beach town. Some parties are written down.

Well it at least shows he knew what year it was.

Ringo84 · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
What do you think would happen, given her sworn statement, if no eyewitnesses come forward (if called for)?

And if she names names, and they say "I don't remember", will she be guilty of perjury?

Dunno. Let's have an investigation and find out.
Ringo

NotreDame · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
But Ringo saying there are other witnesses and actually producing said witnesses is the Grand Canyon.

It begs the question of which part of her account would be corroborated. The NYT and Washington Post have been trying to get an interview with Swetnick and they asked for leads on eyewitnesses. So far the Stormy Daniels lawyer has denied access.

If Aenatti isn’t producing the witnesses, then no need for a delay in the Senate. If this information is, as Avenatti alleges, so serious as to warrant Kavanaugh not proceeding out of committee and to a floor vote, then logically he must disclose the evidence and witnesses to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I wonder if the delay is reflective of Aenatti making sure the witnesses are well prepped. Given how the witnesses cited by Ford and Ramirez have diminished their credibility, Avenatti, promising to have the Hemlock that will kill the Kavanaugh nomination, may be delaying disclosure to ensure the poisons potency. I would.

NotreDame · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
But Ringo saying there are other witnesses and actually producing said witnesses is the Grand Canyon.

It begs the question of which part of her account would be corroborated. The NYT and Washington Post have been trying to get an interview with Swetnick and they asked for leads on eyewitnesses. So far the Stormy Daniels lawyer has denied access.

If Aenatti isn’t producing the witnesses, then no need for a delay in the Senate. If this information is, as Avenatti alleges, so serious as to warrant Kavanaugh not proceeding out of committee and to a floor vote, then logically he must disclose the evidence and witnesses to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I wonder if the delay is reflective of Aenatti making sure the witnesses are well prepped. Given how the witnesses cited by Ford and Ramirez have diminished their credibility, Avenatti, promising to have the Hemlock that will kill the Kavanaugh nomination, may be delaying disclosure to ensure the poisons potency. I would.

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

NotreDame said:
In the meantime, no reason Stentwick cannot contact local authorities. The Senate Judiciary Committee is capable of doing a sufficient investigation to determine whether the recent allegation is meritorious enough to warrant a more in-depth investigation by the FBI.

What do they usually do with unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims?

NotreDame · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
What do they usually do with unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims?

Good question. That’s presently the question occupying the Senate, us, and the American public. There’s no written procedure or established guidelines to follow when dealing with unsubstantiated and uncorroborated accusations.

For me, I’m of the view unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusations are not enough to impede the nomination moving from committee to a floor vote, especially with the witness problems related to Ford and Ramirez’s account, and preculiar points of detail with Ford’s account.

FreeinChrist · Sep 26, 2018

redleghunter said:
Well it at least shows he knew what year it was.

She knew she was 15.

redleghunter · Sep 26, 2018

FreeinChrist said:
She knew she was 15.

That's not difficult math that someone else had to do.

Uh oh, Another allegation against Kavanaugh

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Separation of Church and State expert

CF Advisory team

Thank You Jesus!

Separation of Church and State expert

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Domer

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Separation of Church and State expert

Thank You Jesus!

Separation of Church and State expert

Domer

Domer

Thank You Jesus!

Domer

CF Advisory team

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency